Why should you desire to change someone's mind if you do not know that they are wrong? Why should you 'shake them out of their beliefs' when your beliefs are, at least to the observer, no more justifiable or true? It's bad form to use logical fallacies in a debate and exposes the user as either a manipulator or someone with poor arguments.
I imagine you are one his many sycophantic followers. He has said much the same as I just did in reference to many other commonly-held beliefs which he later turned against (stuff like race and IQ). Why should he be allowed to shake people out of 'wrong-think', but then get mad when progressives try to shake him out of 'wrong-think' by using similar fallacies against him (scientific community condemns = appeal to authority; racist = ad hom)?
Molyneux is a hypocrite and your support of his methods despite this colour you in a bad light. As I've said before, he has done a lot of great documentaries. Try being fair in your assessments of people and that way you can appreciate the good whilst opposing the bad.
[–] 16341912? ago
Typical moneyjew followers. You literally just act in the way b34506 criticized. So what is moneyjew? A honest philosopher as HE claims himself to be, or one of (((our))) agents?
This is why you don't take people who call themselves "philosophers" seriously lads. No real philosopher EVER called himself one. Serious, just look through history. Even lolberg/anarchist kikes like Rand and Mises didn't even have the chutzpah to call themselves that.
But moneyjew is stupid enough to do so. And what is worse, there are cattle who actually listen.